Hi, I guess I could just try it, but maybe someone knows it, or knows what would go wrong… If I run nofib with ghc-stage1 instead of ghc-stage2, I should get the same results, right? (ignoring compilation times here) My hope is that it can speed up perf.haskell.org some more. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Yes, but you still need to build the libraries, so the speed up will not be as much as you might hope. Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2017-10-22 22:19:03 -0400:
Hi,
I guess I could just try it, but maybe someone knows it, or knows what would go wrong…
If I run nofib with ghc-stage1 instead of ghc-stage2, I should get the same results, right? (ignoring compilation times here)
My hope is that it can speed up perf.haskell.org some more.
Greetings, Joachim
Hi Edward, Am Sonntag, den 22.10.2017, 22:23 -0400 schrieb Edward Z. Yang:
Yes, but you still need to build the libraries, so the speed up will not be as much as you might hope.
sure, but when you build every GHC commit, then even a small improvement is nice. Do you know the proper way of building only libraries + ghc-stage1? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Hi, Am Sonntag, den 22.10.2017, 23:14 -0400 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
Am Sonntag, den 22.10.2017, 22:23 -0400 schrieb Edward Z. Yang:
Yes, but you still need to build the libraries, so the speed up will not be as much as you might hope.
sure, but when you build every GHC commit, then even a small improvement is nice.
Do you know the proper way of building only libraries + ghc-stage1?
nevermind, perf.haskell.org also measures compiler performances (in the test suite), so I need stage2. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
participants (2)
-
Edward Z. Yang -
Joachim Breitner